Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[Desert Snake]

You're telling me a sect that believed that contact with foreigners would render them unclean was Hellenized?

They were separatist.

You still haven't answered my question as to why Paul would lie about being a pharisee, this fact certainly didn't gain him any friends, in fact his past experiences make him seem worse.
Basically there is no reason to question that He was an educated Pharisee.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Basically there is no reason to question that He was an educated Pharisee.

Whether or not this is true, it's irrelevant to this thread.

 

[outhouse]

You still haven't answered my question as to why Paul would lie about being a pharisee, this fact certainly didn't gain him any friends, in fact his past experiences make him seem worse.
Basically there is no reason to question that He was an educated Pharisee.

many scholars question if he was ever a Pharisee.

remember, pauls being a "want to be" apostle, he was trying very hard to try and gain credibility by matching the real apostles

 

[outhouse]

Whether or not this is true, it's irrelevant to this thread.

it has everything to do with this thead.

credibility and historicity to pauls literature

 

[outhouse]

Read that article again

will do.

 

[Desert Snake]

[COLOR=many scholars question if he was ever a Pharisee.

remember, pauls being a "want to be" apostle, he was trying very hard to try and gain credibility by matching the real apostles[/QUOTE]



Anyways, it seems like quite a bizarre lie, if he was trying to "gain credibility", being a Pharisee would not achieve this.

 

[outhouse]

wasnt Josephas a roman, jew, pharisee, just like paul is claimed to be????

 

[outhouse]

Well, that probably is a topic for another thread.

but if paul wasnt a pharisee, then it kills any arguement from silence. As pauls credibility is lost more


and the only thing the non citizen crowd has is a arguement from silence on paul as their strongest evidence.

I find it weak

 

[Desert Snake]

and the only thing the non citizen crowd has is a arguement from silence on paul as their strongest evidence.

I find it weak

As do I, he seems a citizen. However, if you are claiming that Paul is lying about being a Pharisee, and making up outrageous stories to back his claim, then lying about being a Roman citizen would have been quite easy for him.


*disclaimer. I believe that Paul was a Pharisee

 

[outhouse]

As do I, he seems a citizen. However, if you are claiming that Paul is lying about being a Pharisee, and making up outrageous stories to back his claim, then lying about being a Roman citizen would have been quite easy for him.


*disclaimer. I believe that Paul was a Pharisee

I dont know if he was a pharisee or not, im not claiming he is, just that he has a great motive and he is a story teller and full of himself.

 

[outhouse]

Anyways, it seems like quite a bizarre lie, if he was trying to "gain credibility", being a Pharisee would not achieve this.

yes but did paul create bizarre lies about jesus and what he taught and wanted out of his religion??

Ok but imagine, if your viewed as a roman citizen spreading a sect of judaism you stole from the real apostles, who were not a hellenistic branch of judaism.

You would want to mimic them, by claiming your a jew of jew and well trained would not be a stretch. he worked closely with these people when they hired him to go headhunting christians.

the real apostles looked at him as a very bad dude, and not to be trusted, so he had that to overcome within his own followers. he even mentions this in his epistles


christianity was going in all directions in pauls time and he wanted to wrangle up as many followers as possibly for his version. he did such a great job it took off where the sect within judaism failed.

 

[Desert Snake]

yes but did paul create bizarre lies about jesus and what he taught and wanted out of his religion??

Ok but imagine, if your viewed as a roman citizen spreading a sect of judaism you stole from the real apostles, who were not a hellenistic branch of judaism.

I think this really is a topic for another thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

but if he was why did he have such a shallow concept of jewish law, and not follow much of it.


A pharisee would not have given up jewish tradition's so fast.

Boy, Paul really was a scoundrel.

Apparently interpreted by scoundrels.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Boy, Paul really was a scoundrel.

Apparently interpreted by scoundrels.

So insists our resident expert on Jewish peasants and Pharisaic halachah. If we could only tap the source of that insight.

 

[Desert Snake]

just that he has a great motive and he is a story teller and full of himself.

That's my point, though, if Paul was 'making up' stories to give himself credibility among Christians, this would certainly not have been the way to do it.

 

[outhouse]

Boy, Paul really was a scoundrel.

Apparently interpreted by scoundrels.

isnt that a light statement considering he persecuted jews ??

and come on, your better then personal attacks



doesnt this make you biased towards paul now?

 

[outhouse]

That's my point, though, if Paul was 'making up' stories to give himself credibility among Christians, this would certainly not have been the way to do it.

heres the thing

scholars all argue different aspects of paul.

Theres only a few things people agree on, he existed, he was from Tarsus at one point, he was jewish, he was hellenized, he wrote a few of the redacted, compiled, interpolated epistles were left with.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I respectfully disagree. Schnelle writes: "It is mostly undisputed, however, that in 3.2-11 Paul struggles against Jewish Christian missionaries. The apostle describes them as 'dogs,' in order to characterize the malignant and destructive intentions of his opponents." Paul seems to be saying: "Who are these uber-Jew dogs to come in here and tell us who is and who is not to be circumcised? My Jewish credentials are second to none! Just look at me ...

circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless, -- and I'm a Roman citizen!" ​

Not only does it not flow, it flows counter to what Paul is trying to convey. At least that's how it seems to me.

If he were a Roman citizen, I think that he would have listed that first. His audience would have known this about him, and if he were constructing himself as a super-Jew, his affiliation with the Empire would have to be explained (or glorified?).

We don't realize, I think, how differently we would have to think about Paul if he were a citizen.

 

[outhouse]

If he were a Roman citizen, I think that he would have listed that first. His audience would have known this about him, and if he were constructing himself as a super-Jew, his affiliation with the Empire would have to be explained (or glorified?).

We don't realize, I think, how differently we would have to think about Paul if he were a citizen.

But your also having to take a view he work was never redacted for content.

Dont know it was for a fact, even his uncontested epistles, were compiled, and edited.


I think its the last thing he would list, it would go against the grain of the context

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But your also having to take a view he work was never redacted for content.

Dont know it was for a fact, even his uncontested epistles, were compiled, and edited.


I think its the last thing he would list, it would go against the grain of the context

Absolutely. We come full circle. There is no evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen. Whether this particular evidence is redacted or not.